I have a somewhat convoluted questions: how do I know what I know?
I recently received a bottle of Haitian vanilla. After reading Cecil’s column, it occurs to me that this might not be fit for use. An e-mail to the company confirms that, sure enough, it contains the additive coumarin that Cecil warned me about.
Here’s the blasphemy: It occurs to me that Cecil might not be the final word on adulterated Mexican foodstuffs. A quick poke around on the web, and I find that there’s some debate on coumarin. It’s said to occur naturally in strawberries and licorice. There are several scientific-sounding Usenet posts defending coumarin, with credible arguments that it’s only harmful in obscene doses–if at all. I wonder for a monent–could Cecil have been wrong?
Now, I don’t really care about the vanilla. There’s a pretty low risk/reward here, I’ll get rid of it. What concerns me is that there’s no way for me to know whether or not it’s safe.
I don’t have a lab full of rats to test this vanilla on my own. Even if I can find a scientific study, I’m not sophisticated enough to interpret it–I have to rely on secondhand interpretations, which often conflict. It seems like, no matter who I choose to believe, my decision is based on little more than a fallacious appeal to authority.
It seems like there are more and more situations like this. Global warming. The Atkins diet. Economic theory.
So, here’s my question (finally): Is there any rational basis for choosing a belief when you’re not qualified to conduct your own research? Or are we stuck in a position of only knowing with certainty what we learn firsthand?
How do you know what you know? You rely on experts. If you relied only on what you yourself know, then you would have to be a chef, auto mechanic, lawyer, doctor, plumber, electrician, washing machine repairman, carpenter, veterinarian, tree surgeon, building inspector, tax assessor, tailor, carpet installer, dry cleaner, teacher, psychologist, landscape architect, cop…
The rest of us rely on various federal agencies who are paid (by us) to know this kind of stuff, and whose word we are generally happy to take. NOAA tells us when tornadoes are possible, the USDA tells us whether there’s e.coli in that hamburger, and the FDA tells us that coumarin has no business being in our food. That’s not good enough for you?
Thanks for the reply, but I think you’re missing my point. Trusting a federal agency just because it’s a federal agency seems like shoddy logic.
Federal agencies have agendas, and they’re not beyond suspicion. Doesn’t it make sense to doubt the EPA, when they say that asbestos-laden Zonolite insulation is safe? Or the USDA when it assures me that our mad cow safeguards are adequate? I think you could raise a reasonable doubt in these and countless other science-based policy issues.
As the internet matures, we find ourselves awash in an increasing number of well-presented alternative viewpoints on topics such as these. On their faces, they appear just as strong as the official government-promoted positions. How do you sort out the correct view in such a flood of contradictory opinions.
In the end, isn’t there a more satisfying basis than “X said it, so I believe it”?
You can go out and train yourself to be a chef, auto mechanic, lawyer, doctor, plumber, electrician, washing machine repairman, carpenter, veterinarian, tree surgeon, building inspector, tax assessor, tailor, carpet installer, dry cleaner, teacher, psychologist, landscape architect, cop, and you can add “training as a meat inspector and getting hired at the USDA” and “training as an insulation expert and getting hired at the EPA” to that list.
Or you can educate yourself a bit on the issues involved, using the Internet, or the public library, or both, just enough to make an informed decision that The Powers That Be are probably right, and you can then get on with your life, free of crippling paranoia.
Or you can buy a tinfoil hat and some acreage in the Ozarks and spend your life eating only food that you yourself have grown, in soil that you yourself have tested for various contaminants, using testing procedures and equipment that you yourself have developed, because you can’t trust those government “experts” who tell you what to look for in contaminated soil and how to test for it; drinking only water that you yourself have run through the homemade water purifier that you yourself built, because you can’t trust the EPA; wearing only clothes made from fibers and cloth that you yourself have created, because who knows where those artificial fibers came from and what kinds of cancers they’re giving you, because the FDA won’t tell you they’re carcinogenic; and treating your own medical needs out of a stockpile of medical supplies that you yourself have amassed, out of medical information that you yourself have taught yourself, cobbling it together from various sources, because you can’t trust the AMA.
And driving only a car that you have built yourself out of spare parts, because you can’t trust the NHTSA; and never driving over any bridges, because you can’t trust state and federal bridge inspectors to make sure that bridge you’re about to drive over isn’t crumbling; and ignoring all tornado sirens, because FEMA and NOAA are just jerking your chain.
There are people who live like this. They have my complete pity.
Strange, that these paranoid people never seem to include “running for public office” on their “Do it yourself to make sure it’s done right because you can’t trust anyone in the government” list…They seem content to hide out in the Ozarks and let the government run itself.
Well, not that you’re not right about this, but even Cecil has a dose of healthy skepticism…
CECIL DISTRUSTING A GOVERNMENT AGENCY?!?!?! Head for the hills!!!
There are plenty of good reasons to trust government agencies, to be sure, and I know you’re intelligent enough to realize that there’s a middle ground between blind faith in the government and stockpiling tinfoil beanies in the mountains. However, as I read recently on this very board, (paraphrased) “The truth from someone you distrust is still the truth,” and therefore, lies from someone you trust are still lies.
There are plenty of things that our government restricts or regulates which are not regulated by other developed countries, and there are things which our government does not regulate which ARE regulated by other developed countries. Our government is not the be-all end-all bastion of knowledge, and skepticism within limits isn’t necessarily to be quashed.
That said…
tonsil fan, welcome to the boards, and can you post some links to cites that coumarin might not be unhealthy?
I think this is an interesting, well phrased and difficult question, but I doubt it has a factual answer [BtW I suggested about 24 hours ago that it be moved to GD].
I’m partly moved to post about this due to Nonexistent mouse runs up $100M tab. Invisible cats credited with resolution. Cecil’s column says the ban was from 1954. The FDA Consumer report that leads Cecil to say “So yes, I’d say toxic” talks about “large” amounts. Why should we have confidence that the FDA has revisited the issue as science has progressed? Why would we not suppose that something enters the banned list and stays there absent some concerted lobbying effort?
Now, my experience of DDG is that she does
or thinks she does. But how does she know that she’s making an informed decision? On an issue like this, how do you know that The Powers That Be aren’t phoning in an obsolete answer or one contaminated by commercial interests? As a non-specialist, the number of vaguely sane-sounding objectors isn’t going to be much guide.
I think tonsil fan’s point is that DDG’s (2), whilst it might be less unsatisfactory than (1) or (3) is not very satisfactory at all.